Since column C states "TF" and not "ship" I would assume this to be the case.

If its reliable and the context gets explained, it is interesting. But this requires the source to be a dev. And then it still does not explain much without explaining the numbering first. Could be an intuitive "weighting" of the modifier, not sure.

But without knowing the orignator and where he got his data from, I have no idea how reliable that chart is.

That's clearly a typo. The chart is pretty much just a visual representation of wwengr's How to Choose Leaders. There's two sections with "TF" listed. The bottom values on the chart are for ships, not TF leaders.

The number/color correlates to the importance. 1 is the most important stat.

alanschu, the link you provided - thank you very much btw., what a sensational piece of work - rather confirms what I said all the time.

Air skill of CV TF commander = important Air skill of CV commander = no impact

See below quote from your link with the relevant part highlighted by me:

quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr

Ship Captains

Carriers

This includes CV, CVL, and CVE. Assign leader using these priorities:

Leadership – Influences the ship’s experience gain

Air Skill – If the carrier captain will serve as the TF Commander, then he functions as the Air HQ for the TF aircraft. Air skill then influences the number of strike and patrol aircraft that will fly.

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake TBF's are good ship killers once the damage has been done by the SBD's

Good observation, I agree. There even was a heated discussion on that topic a long time ago, where an evil plan to replace all DBs with TBs failed rather spectacularily in the subsequent CV engagement.

Another plus for DBs simply is their indpendence to low torp ordnance, a common issue on CVL/CVE types. For the same reason NavB/LowN for your TBs are secondary skills to keep in mind.

Yes Engrish is my second language Captain, thanks! Although in many instances I even prefer it to my mother language, it simply is more versatile. Actually, sometimes I have no problems expressing something in Engrish, while in German I struggle to find the right words.

And there is always dict.cc to support my lame attempts at faking a broad vocabulary...

Alright. Thanks both of you for the good advice. I am also interpreting your comments that you're better off defending by getting the first punch in, if it's a carrier vs. carrier fight with fairly equal forces - then your best defense is a potent offense. Simply putting up 100% CAP and waiting for an incoming raid - is a bad idea, unless, as LoBaron writes, you are fairly confident you are out of detection range of your opponent (that could be a big if) - and really want to be more precise in the timing of your attack (or perhaps you want to simply remain low profile as long as possible, etc.) I know I'm simplifying a lot here, given the myriad of other choices one might have to make in different tactical/strategic situations.

Extreme settings such as 100% or 0% CAP always have a disadvantage in WitP. For 100% the most obvious are that you deny escorts for your strikes, and that you get a very high atigue gain with this setting. Both points work against you immediately in case something does not turn out exactly as you planned.

I general I would reccommend to start at a 50% setting and slightly adapt due to mission specific factors, force relation, and admin stuff... Personally I would consider 80/20 settings for CAP as already quite extreme, but YMMV.

EDIT: just to avoid misunderstandings: I am referring to CV borne CAP in combination with escort settings for potential naval strikes here. As soon as LBA or other mission types are concerned, entirely different factors come into play.

Also the above does not cover special cases, such CVE groups solely assigned to CAP/ASW duty for example.

I take this as a compliment, but TBH there are already so many extremely valuable guides out there that you could already clutter a whole forum section with em. just think about all those - much better structured than this one - Alfred guides, or wwengr's sensational leader guide just now linked by alanschuin this thread.

Also it is, sadly, incomplete. I really want to find the time to finish it, or at least cover all amjor CV battle aspects I initially intended to, but this has to wait until I find more time.

What I already wanted to advertise for some time now, is a sticky in the war room which holds all important guides and is updated whenever a new interesting work pops up. But I guess this is difficult to achieve, or at least difficult to maintain.

I would have no issue to remove the Air Coordination guide for this matter and simply replace it by a generic guide link collection. But then it would be my task to maintain it, and I cannot gurantee that I will find the time to do that.

I would have no issue to remove the Air Coordination guide for this matter and simply replace it by a generic guide link collection. But then it would be my task to maintain it, and I cannot gurantee that I will find the time to do that.

Of course no pression at all and many thanks for your time spent in these guides, hope to see the final version

alanschu, the link you provided - thank you very much btw., what a sensational piece of work - rather confirms what I said all the time.

Air skill of CV TF commander = important Air skill of CV commander = no impact

See below quote from your link with the relevant part highlighted by me:

quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr

Ship Captains

Carriers

This includes CV, CVL, and CVE. Assign leader using these priorities:

Leadership – Influences the ship’s experience gain

Air Skill – If the carrier captain will serve as the TF Commander, then he functions as the Air HQ for the TF aircraft. Air skill then influences the number of strike and patrol aircraft that will fly.

You see that air skill only is significant if the captain acts as TF commander as well.

I'm not sure if the Naval helps much in evading air attacks either, based on that link. I tend to still keep quality air captains in charge of my CVs in case my current commander is incapacitated for some reason, or is assigned elsewhere, I need to split the TF, etc.

EDIT: FTR this thread has been interesting since I have historically never used my dive bombers as search if I have any appreciable amount of float planes in the TF. I am changing that now.

There are many skill/exp related dice rolls not covered by wwengr´s post, such as damage control, collisions, a more detailed description of what happens when, as he puts it, naval skill influences "locating a target during surface combat", and a lot more.

So draw your own conclusions. I wouldn´t underestimate the complexity of specific combat related dicerolls and the number of variables involved.

Re: splitting TFs:

I would avoid doing so in a combat environment.

Better define your TF composition before the operation. If you focus on flexibilty and redundancy there already you avoid the necessity for mid-ocean experiments. You can always exchange ships between existing TFs, so there is no need to rely on ship commanders becomming TF commanders at random.

If the current commander of a CV TF is incapacitated this usually means a lot of trouble for the carriers it contains, and your flagship - the largest CV in the TF - already sunk. Maximizing strike size might be one of your lesser problems by then.

To make this clear: All I am saying is that nav skill is by far more important for CV captains than air skill, nothing prevents you from looking for air skill as good secondary.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron If the current commander of a CV TF is incapacitated this usually means a lot of trouble for the carriers it contains, and your flagship - the largest CV in the TF - already sunk. Maximizing strike size might be one of your lesser problems by then.

To make this clear: All I am saying is that nav skill is by far more important for CV captains than air skill, nothing prevents you from looking for air skill as good secondary.

There is always the possibility of sub attack or collision in the night before a CV battle that could leave the flagship sunk or separated from the main fleet but the majority of the carrier force intact. Is the benefit from nav skill that much more important than ensuring that the CVs aren't led by someone with air skill 30?

The original TF commander will always remain with the original (in this case air combat) TF. The newly created TF will always be an escort TF (never an air combat TF).

Even in the very unlikely case that a CV which has been moved to the newly created escort TF is still able to conduct flight operations (rare occurance considering that the TF was automatically created because of the carriers´high damage level), it will not be able to conduct any offensive air ops because of TF type.

So air skill will not matter for the commander of this new TF, but probably naval skill will - assuming it supports damage control and works against accumulation of additional damage, or correct behaviour in surface battles.

quote:

Have you done experiments with differing nav skills and things like damage control and collisions and whatnot? The leader ratings are definitely hiding behind some level of a nebulous cloud.

Yes, but a long time ago, and most of em with the original WitP, and the even older Uncommon Valor.

I know for a fact that damage control is directly related to crew exp, ship type and ship size. I have also seen many hints that it is also related to naval skill, but not enough to confirm it statistically. Same for collisions. I am very sure that TF size and Leadership/Naval skill of the TF commander factor in, but I suspect a contribution of naval skill of the individual ship commanders.

What I am sure of (besides the TF commanders´ attributes) is that the combination of naval skill and aggression rating of a ship commander govern the ships´ behaviour in a (surface) engagement. These surface fights look pretty simple and highly random, but actually there are very complex calculations behind the battles relying on a lot of variables.

Personally I am convinced that naval skill is involved in a high percentage of ship related dice rolls, so I prefer to play safe.

ORIGINAL: House Stark There is always the possibility of sub attack or collision in the night before a CV battle that could leave the flagship sunk or separated from the main fleet but the majority of the carrier force intact. Is the benefit from nav skill that much more important than ensuring that the CVs aren't led by someone with air skill 30?

Such a scenario is only possible if you use a ship commander as TF commander. I suggest you NEVER do that for any TF larger - or more important - than an ASW hunting group.

For combat task forces the commander should always be handpicked and not commanding a specific ship at the same time. This is a similar basic rule of thumb for naval units as for air units it is to never use an active pilot as squadron commander.

The original TF commander will always remain with the original (in this case air combat) TF. The newly created TF will always be an escort TF (never an air combat TF).

Ah fair enough. I figured (for some reason) he'd stay with the flagship. Though if the flagship is disengaging I probably have more serious issues.

I agree that ship crew experience seems pretty vital! (I am noticing that my AMs are now reporting the odd hit in ASW, now that they have 45+ exp instead of in the 20s/30s).

The Naval Skill definitely seems useful in surface engagements (both for commander and for ship leaders).

quote:

This is a similar basic rule of thumb for naval units as for air units it is to never use an active pilot as squadron commander.

Hmmmm. I have noticed that the leader is often a pilot, but typically have never done anything about it (mostly because I figured replacing the leader would replace the pilot too). This is not the case? There doesn't seem to be anyway to remove him from the squadron (he seems to rejoin the squadron the next day)

Hmmmm. I have noticed that the leader is often a pilot, but typically have never done anything about it (mostly because I figured replacing the leader would replace the pilot too). This is not the case? There doesn't seem to be anyway to remove him from the squadron (he seems to rejoin the squadron the next day)

A bit off topic for this thread, but just to clearify why exchanging active pilots as commanders is so important:

If your current squadron commander gets shot down, he gets replaced by a pilot from the squadron. Very often this autoselected commander has atrocious skills (leadership, air, inspiration, admin, aggression,...), but you will not notice until until you actually look at the squdron.

Meanwhile the squadrons' performance will drop significantly resulting in failed missions and lots of dead pilots in a combat environment. On the contrary, non flying squadron commanders cannot die, except for a diceroll in case the complete squadron gets destroyed (rare event, usually when a carrier sinks mid-ocean), so you can assume that such a commander will always be with the squad, and usually improve over time.

When I send a squad to the frontline, one of the first things I do is check the commander for skill and if he is an active pilot. If he is an active pilot I even replace him if that means a slight drop in initial stats.

You are correct that replacing the leader also removes the pilot from the squadron. The new leader (if he is a non flying officer) will then only show up as commander, not as pilot.

When selecting a new commander from the pool pay attention to the asterisks next to the commanders' names. Commanders with asterisks are pilots of the squadron, do not select those.

ORIGINAL: House Stark There is always the possibility of sub attack or collision in the night before a CV battle that could leave the flagship sunk or separated from the main fleet but the majority of the carrier force intact. Is the benefit from nav skill that much more important than ensuring that the CVs aren't led by someone with air skill 30?

Such a scenario is only possible if you use a ship commander as TF commander. I suggest you NEVER do that for any TF larger - or more important - than an ASW hunting group.

For combat task forces the commander should always be handpicked and not commanding a specific ship at the same time. This is a similar basic rule of thumb for naval units as for air units it is to never use an active pilot as squadron commander.

I hadn't thought about the downsides to having a ship commander as TF commander. I'd just been thinking of the PPs saved by having good individual ship captains lead the TFs.

ORIGINAL: House Stark There is always the possibility of sub attack or collision in the night before a CV battle that could leave the flagship sunk or separated from the main fleet but the majority of the carrier force intact. Is the benefit from nav skill that much more important than ensuring that the CVs aren't led by someone with air skill 30?

Such a scenario is only possible if you use a ship commander as TF commander. I suggest you NEVER do that for any TF larger - or more important - than an ASW hunting group.

For combat task forces the commander should always be handpicked and not commanding a specific ship at the same time. This is a similar basic rule of thumb for naval units as for air units it is to never use an active pilot as squadron commander.

I hadn't thought about the downsides to having a ship commander as TF commander. I'd just been thinking of the PPs saved by having good individual ship captains lead the TFs.

The PP cost is the downside of handpicking commanders, true. And for low priority TFs (backwater convoys, shipping on transfer missions, low threat area operations,...) using ship captains as TF commanders it is a valid tactic to save some.

The true cost is a bit dependent on playstyle though.

I often create TFs and keep them operational for a long time. For example in a specific TOO I create surface combat group and call it "Main SAG [area]". I exchange ships to and from the TF to ports, depending on its current mission profile. When the operational center of gravity shifts to another area, I simply remove ships from the area but do not disband the TF. So for me the true PP cost of handpicking commanders is minimal compared to exchanging bad ship captains with competent ones, or buying out LCUs or air units.

That has the additional benefit of flexibility because there is no neccessity to select the "correct" ship as flag.

Sometimes a "Main Battle SAG" only contains a DD when it is not on a mission, while the major combatants are either disbanded in port or on a different mission in a different TF, but the DD TF is still commanded by a good RADM (not that rank has any combat relevance FWIIW, just an example).

In some cases you could argue not having a dedicated TF commander is still useful to exploit that.

If you are only going to have Lexington in combat, for instance, she has a great air Admiral, but if the TF gets split for some reason, then presumably a superior captain will spearhead the new TF (which is now a surface combatant)

Extreme settings such as 100% or 0% CAP always have a disadvantage in WitP. For 100% the most obvious are that you deny escorts for your strikes, and that you get a very high fatigue gain with this setting. Both points work against you immediately in case something does not turn out exactly as you planned.

Being new to AE, trying to figure out CAP has been an interesting, still ongoing learning experience. I find curious that there isn't a separate altitude setting for your CAP i.e. there appears only one altitude setting you can make for your fighter squadron, and I have been making sure that setting is made to match or be slightly higher than the bombers the fighter squadron might be escorting on a mission. (Am I'm missing something here?) So I don't know - do CAP fly at some pre-determined altitude? Should I be instead setting Fighter altitude for CAP rather than ESCORT? Is there an additional setting somewhere I'm missing??

I also find the way you set CAP by percentage (%) distracting as I still end up doing the math of the actual number of planes in the fighter squadron, calculating the percentages (and reducing down the results) to know exactly how many planes will be in CAP. And also in addition to that, how many will actually be in-the-air - makes me do another calculation of 1/3rd - again rounding down. I really want to know how many planes I will have in the air to defend against what I suspect will be the incoming air raid - and a simple CAP percentage selection doesn't do this for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron I general I would reccommend to start at a 50% setting and slightly adapt due to mission specific factors, force relation, and admin stuff... Personally I would consider 80/20 settings for CAP as already quite extreme, but YMMV.

Interesting. The computer AI defaults to much less - usually 10%? So as a noob (playing Coral Sea of course ) I made my CAP similar to computer AI. Although I adjusted often based on the tactical situation, and more importantly as you mentioned earlier - CAP really is about how many planes you want going out on Escort - that's what is really being set. Since (as I read the manual more and understood more) - even say a 50% CAP doesn't mean the other 50% of the squadron will do nothing if the TF is attacked - if they are present they will scramble, albeit much more slowly than if they were part of the original assigned CAP percentage. The CAP question then becomes: how much fatigue will be generated by higher levels of readiness? And how much do I want available for Escort? And I imagine the fatigue level calculations may be so intricate that to provide some kind of simplified chart would be not so useful (such as pilot skill levels, type of aircraft, type of commanders, airframes, etc.)

So I find myself adjusting per turn based on current fatigue levels, tactical needs and what I suspect might occur - risk management - i.e. if I am very certain I have incoming next turn, I'm going to keep pushing higher CAP levels despite growing fatigue - until it gets to the point I really need to remove the TF from the combat air zone and stand down (if I have the choice available.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron EDIT: just to avoid misunderstandings: I am referring to CV borne CAP in combination with escort settings for potential naval strikes here. As soon as LBA or other mission types are concerned, entirely different factors come into play.

Also the above does not cover special cases, such CVE groups solely assigned to CAP/ASW duty for example.

Yes got it. Thanks for your tips LoBaron. Most helpful - as have been your later discussion on this thread regarding assigning leaders.

I am pretty sure those numbers are just priority. The table doesn't indicate what advantage it gives, however. Though as the lowest priority, perhaps we shouldn't care so much? :P And yes, rear area means not engaged in fighting. Basically what type of commander do you want for guys that aren't actively fighting is the way that I take it.

I am pretty sure those numbers are just priority. The table doesn't indicate what advantage it gives, however. Though as the lowest priority, perhaps we shouldn't care so much? :P And yes, rear area means not engaged in fighting. Basically what type of commander do you want for guys that aren't actively fighting is the way that I take it.

"Priority" Not sure what you mean by Priority?

Ah - ok, so as soon as unit not engaged, considered rear. I guess I had this WWI trench situation pictured in my mind. Thx.

Priority meaning simply "what stats are good for a Rear Unit LCU commander?" 4 means it's the 4th most important. The ones marked 1, 2, and 3 are considered more important (according to whomever made the chart, anyways).